Talk:Earth-Romulan War
Spaceflight and a 150 years Since there have been several attempts to move these sections of the article to the apocrypha section. I thought we should have a longer note about them here in the discussion page so the attempts would stop and to explain why they are where they are, since that seems unclear to some people. I want to say first of all that I understand the reasoning for the move attempts. There are two types of reference works. And two types of apocryphal works. There are the sort of real-world point-of-view reference works where everything is stated by the authors as behind-the-scenes commentary and then there are these "filling-in-the-blanks"-books that are written as if they were an "in-universe book" with maps and made up technical information, blueprints, and details about what happened in the history of the trek universe that supposedly haven't been revealed in canon yet. Then we have the two types of apocryphal works that are these similar in-universe background information source book types and then we have narrative stories and novels and games and such. I understand that since some of the reference books and apocryphal resource books are both written from an in-universe point-of-view with new made up shit, they seem similar as they contain new information in the in-universe style, and it seems stupid to divide them up. Why not put them all into apocrypha. The difference is that some are intended by the writers as official authorized reference sources for the canon episodes and films, while the others are reference works related to the comics, books and games. Spaceflight Chronology and Federation 150 Years, like the Star Charts and Technical Manuals are reference works for canon. If we were to move them all to apocrypha, and keep only the behind-the-scenes commentary in bg, we would need to move all of these in all articles. That would need a policy change, and that discussion needs to be had elsewhere. This article cannot just be an exception to the rule. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:18, April 6, 2014 (UTC) :As the one who made the last attempt, and sorry if that has irked you a bit, I operated on the current understanding that they are not considered "valid" production BGinfo material (anymore). While it is too soon to say anything about Federation and may have jumped the gun on this one, this is IMO especially the case with The Chronology which has gone the way of Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual, and, though both licensed, these two are and not written by actual production staffers (whereas the other examples you mention are, using production derived material), and hopelessly outdated by later established canon. Therefore I assumed they must then be apocrypha. Hence my action. That being said, I'll abide with current policy, though you were right that I was led astray.--Sennim (talk) 17:13, April 6, 2014 (UTC) I was not annoyed at all. I simply wanted to bring clarity to the policy. We don't currently have a policy that entire reference works turn into apocrypha after new canon creates a contradiction with some aspects of the reference work. Those specific notes from the work simply become outdated. If you want to establish a policy that an entire reference book becomes apocrypha when this occurs, it also needs to be argued somewhere else, as that would be a big change to many articles in MA. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:04, April 6, 2014 (UTC) Removed , Cpt. Picard, while trying to defuse a dangerous situation with the Romulans in 2366, mentions Station Salem-One as a location where a bloody war once began. It is unknown whether this was a reference to the Earth-Romulan War.}} :Those notes about the two battles involving the Romulans in an unknown era are still somewhat relevant, but in this case there's absolutely nothing linking Salem-One to the Romulan Wars. There are dozens of war events which we know nothing about, there's no need to single one out and start speculating. (though of course, if the link was made in some novel the info can be in the Apocrypha section) -- Capricorn (talk) 16:44, March 1, 2016 (UTC) Also removed: Nitpick. Though admittedly now I'm wondering about that too... -- Capricorn (talk) 20:52, September 2, 2018 (UTC) :I could think of a few ways around that- but it is a good removal. 31dot (talk) 21:11, September 2, 2018 (UTC)